Reasons for DPRK-U.S. Summit Collapse and the ROK Government’s Tasks: Encouraging the Exchange of UN Sanctions Relief with ‘A Step Further from Yongbyon Factor’

Date 2019-03-01 View 1,741 Writer Cheong Seong-Chang

Reasons for DPRK-U.S. Summit Collapse and the ROK Government’s Tasks: Encouraging the Exchange of UN Sanctions Relief with ‘A Step Further from Yongbyon Factor’

 

No. 2019-6 (March 1, 2019)

Dr. Cheong Seong-Chang

Vice President for Research Planning, the Sejong Institute

softpower@sejong.org

 

 

The summit between North Korea and the U.S. in Hanoi concluded on February 28, with both sides leaving empty-handed, against the expectations that this summit will bring significant progress in several aspects – North Korea’s denuclearization, the establishment of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, and the improvement of DPRK-U.S. relations. At the summit, President Trump demanded a denuclearization measure beyond the permanent shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear complex while Chairman Kim Jong-un also demanded UN sanctions relief beyond the level of exempting the inter-Korean cooperation projects. The two failed to bridge this gap.

 

At the post-summit press conference, Secretary Pompeo, who sat beside President Trump, said, “We asked him to do more. He was unprepared to do that.” In relation to the abrupt cessation of the summit, President Trump said, “it was about sanctions. I mean, they wanted sanctions lifted but they weren’t willing to do an area that we wanted.” [emphasis added by the author]

 

U.S. State Secretary Mike Pompeo, who accompanied President Trump at the joint conference, said specifically, “even that facility [second uranium enrichment plant], even the Yongbyon facility and all of its scope -- which is important, for sure -- still leaves missiles, still leaves warheads and weapons systems. So there's a lot of other elements that we just couldn’t get to.” Judging from his comments, it seems that the U.S. wanted to agree on ‘denuclearization measures more than the complete decommissioning of the Yongbyon nuclear complex’. This is corroborated by North Korea’s Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho’s news conference held around midnight, stating, “during the meeting, the United States insisted that we should take one more step beside the dismantlement of nuclear facilities in the Yongbyon area.”

 

However, it appears that Pyongyang was not prepared to agree on additional denuclearization measures other than the closure of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities at the Hanoi summit. Foreign Minister Ri, through an interpreter, expressed North Korea’s stance related to the denuclearization, “If the United States removes partial sanctions, namely, removes the article of sanctions that hamper the civilian economy and livelihood of our people in particular, we will permanently and completely dismantle all the nuclear material production facilities in the Yongbyon area, including plutonium and uranium, in the presence of U.S. experts and by the joint work of technicians from both countries. [emphasis added by the author]” And he added, “What we proposed was not the removal of all sanctions, but the partial removal. In detail, there are 11 UN sanctions resolutions imposed upon the DPRK and we proposed to the United States to lift the article of sanctions that impede the civilian economy and the livelihood of our people from five UN sanctions resolutions adopted in 2016 and 2017.” [emphasis added by the author]

 

Such remarks from the North Korean foreign minister refutes President Trump’s words that the North wanted ‘complete removal of sanctions’. Nevertheless, Washington seemed to fear that the drive for denuclearization talks could wane as the partial removal of sanctions markedly nullify the effects of sanctions even if the UN Security Council excludes the articles of resolutions related to people’s livelihood and the civilian economy, beyond the exemption of inter-Korean cooperation projects for sanctions. Therefore, President Trump possibly regarded North Korea’s demand for partial removal of sanctions synonymous with ‘the complete removal of sanctions’.

 

During the Hanoi summit, in the U.S., President Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, once his ‘wingman’, testified at the public hearing; thus President Trump plunged into serious crisis in domestic politics. Consequently, President Trump desperately needed to obtain ‘an outcome beyond expectations’ related to North Korea’s denuclearization at the Hanoi summit. Nonetheless, he failed to do so because North Korea refused to agree on ‘a step further than the decommissioning of Yongbyon nuclear site’. If President Trump agreed on a deal with North Korea involving the partial relief of UN sanctions as a corresponding measure of the shutdown of Yongbyon nuclear sites, he would have inexorably confronted severe criticisms at home for the ‘bad deal’.

 

Despite failing to clinch an agreement in the Vietnamese capital, the two leaders maintained amicable relations and alluded to the continuation of the negotiations after the summit. At the post-summit press conference, President Trump said, “We had a really, I think, a very productive time.” and “I think we’ll end up being very good friends with Chairman Kim and with North Korea.” Secretary Pompeo also added, “the President and Chairman Kim both felt good that they had made that progress but couldn’t quite get along the line any further to make a deal that would have been bigger at this point. I hope we’ll do so in the weeks ahead.”

 

North Korea also explicated the reasons of the summit collapse through a new conference by Foreign Minister Ri and Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui around midnight nearing March 1; but they showed a restrained attitude, refraining from lambasting President Trump and the U.S. acutely. And the mouthpiece of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party of Korea, Rodong Sinmun, issued an article with a picture of President Trump and Chairman together harmoniously and reported, “They agreed to … continue productive dialogues for settling the issues discussed at the Hanoi Summit.” It added, “Kim Jong Un expressed his thanks to Trump for making positive efforts for the successful meeting and talks while making a long journey and said goodbye, promising the next meeting.”

 

After the summit, “President Trump asked President Moon to play an active role as a mediator by conversing with Chairman Kim Jong Un and later informing him about the results of those conversations.” Accordingly, should the South Korean government help the two countries narrow the gap through the summits with the U.S. and North Korea, President Trump and Chairman Kim will be able to reach a ‘bigger deal’ in the third summit than what the Hanoi summit aimed to achieve.

 

While the ‘permanent shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear complex’ is a first crucial measure regarding North Korea’s denuclearization, this cannot solely persuade the U.S. public view which is generally skeptical to North Korea’s denuclearization. Pyongyang should bring up additional daring measures of denuclearization - such as the shutdown of nuclear facilities in other areas or abolition of ICBMs partially or fully – in its negotiations with the U.S. delegation. And once North Korea agrees on ‘denuclearization measures in addition to the closure of Yongbyon nuclear facilities’, the U.S. needs to consider keenly the partial removal of UN sanctions related to people’s livelihoods such as textile exports and petroleum imports as well as the exemptions for inter-Korean cooperation projects.

 

For such an agreement to be realized between the two sides, the South Korean government should arrange a trilateral working-group meeting that brings together U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun, North Korea's Special Representative for U.S. Affairs Kim Hyok-chol, and Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Lee Do-hoon in the nearest future. And Seoul should assume the mediating role more actively in assisting North Korea and the U.S. to find a common ground related to denuclearization and sanctions relief by pursuing a ROK-DPRK-U.S. trilateral summit in Panmunjom or a third country.

 

Translator’s note: This is a summarized unofficial translation of the original article that was written in Korean. All references should be made to the original paper.

 

The views expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily represent those of the Sejong Institute.